LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 647 097 A 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 



392 
B7 S8 
opy 1 



TEXASAND NEW MEXl 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



SPEECH OF 

liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 

null Av-H. »srEPl-JEN8, ()i< iteumtia, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FRIDAY. AUGUST <^, 1850, 
O.i the Presidenfs Message of JJug^ust 6, 1850, concerning Texas and ^'ew Mexico. 



I'tie House being in Coniniitte.e of the Whole on the stale 
of ihp Union, and having under consideration the Civil nnd 
Dspl(vnatic Appropriation Bill for the fiscal year ending 30th 
of June, 1851, (Mr. Burt, of South raroliiia, beinir in the 
chair)— 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, addre.ssed the 
oommittee as follows: 
" - Mr. Chairman: The most interesting of the 
many interesting subjects which are now pressing 
themselves upon the consideration of this House 
and the country, in my opinion, is the message 
communicated a few days ao;o by the President to 
Congress upon the subject of the Texas boundary, 
and the difficulties and embanassments attending 
that question. That message is now upon your 
table. It deserves our immediate consideration, 
and demands wise, prudent, and speedy action. I 
propose, therefore, in what 1 have to say upon 
this occasion, to confine myself to the general top- 
ics embraced in it; and it is a matter of regret to 
nie, in the midst of so many disquieting and irri- 
tating causes which now distract and stir up the 
public mind, to see that we are likely to have new ' 
elements of strife and contention, to excite and I 
inflame those strong sectional feelings which for i 
aome time past have so unhappily existed among us, j 
Tiiese elements are to be found in the message I 
wlluded to. The principles assumed by the Pres- I 
ident in that paper are, in my judgment, in .sev- I 
eral particulars, unsustained by the Constitution I 
and laws of the United States, and dangerous in i 
their tendencies not only to the rights of the States 
but to the liberties of the people. They strilte at 
the very foundaiion upon which the whole struc- 
ture of our system of representative republican 
government was reared, and upon which alone it 
can permanently stand. This, I Know, is strong 
language, but no stronger than the truth requires I 
I/O be spoken. There is no principle more essen- [ 
tial to the preservation of our Government than 
that the mi]itary in time of peace shall be subject 
lo the civil power. The message is in opposition 
to this principle. The President informs us that 
'• by the Constitution of the United States, the 
' President is constituted commander-in-chief of 
' iho army and navy; and of the militia of the sev- 
' era! States, when called into the actual service of j 

* the United States. The Constitution declares ' 
' also that he shall take care that the laws be faith- i 
' fully executed, and that he shall, from time to j 
' time, give to the Congress information of the 

• state of the Union." 

This, sir, is true. By the Constitution the Pres- 
ident is the commander-in-chief of the army and 
navy of the United States, and the militia of the 
several States when called into the actual service 
of the United States, and it is his duty to see that 
the laws are faithfully executed. This is all true. 
But there is something else equally true, and that 
is, that in seeingthat theiawssare faithfully execu- 
ted, he mmt himself act in saborditialion to law, 



and in conformity with the provisions of the laws 
which point out the mode of their execution. And 
he can u.se the military to execute no law which 
contains no provisions tor its execution first by 
the courts. 

The President further asserts that " the Con- 
' stitution of the United Stales declares that « this 
• Constitution, and the laws of the United States 
' which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and 
' all treaties made, or which shall be made, under 
' the authority of the United States, shall be the 
' supreme law of the land.' " And then he refers 
to the late treaty with Mexico, and amongst other 
clauses he refers particularly to the clause which 
guaranties to Mexicans who may remain in the 
ceded territory protection in the free enjoyment of 
their liberty and property, and security in the frie 
exercise of their religion, without restriction, jn 
this way he a!?sumes that the treaty of Guadaliie 
Hidalgo is such a law as he is bound to see " faith- 
fully executed" in all its obligations. He further 
informs us that the State of Texas is about to'cx- 
tend her civil jurisdiction overa portion ofcoitotry 
lying this side the Rio Grande within the limitfe 
of the boundary of Texas as originally clained 
and asserted by her, but which, in his opinion, l(e' 
longs to the General Government, and not toTex;, 
by virtue of the cession made by the late treat 
And without suggesting the slightest cause to «: 
prehend that any of these rights of " libert 
property, and religion," guarantied to Mexicani 
under the treaty, would be interfered v;ith by the' 
extension of the civil jurisdiction of Texas over 
those of them residing east of the Rio Grande, 
even if they were included in the terms of the 
treaty, he tells us that he feels bound to resist such 
fxiension of her jurisdiction by Texas, and ifne- 
ces.sary, to repel tt with the military force of the 
Government at his control. By information re- 
ceived from Texas, no one can doubt that she 
intends to maintain her civil authorities coexten- 
sive with the boundary claimed by her. And we 
have the issue fairly presented, whether the Pres- 
ident has the rightful power, under the Constitu- 
tion and laws of the Unitod Stales, as those laws 
now exist, to use the military power nt his com- 
mand against the authorities of Texas. I main- 
tain that he has not. I mtet the question at the 
threshold. It is one of the most important that 
has ever arisen in this country; and its decision, if 
force should be resorted to, cannot fail to mark an 
era in its history. I deny to the Pnaident the 
power he claims; and I assert that, under the 
Constitution and laws, he has no power, in time 
of peace, " in seeing that the laws are faithfully 
executed, "to resorr to military force, except when 
their due execution l)y the courts, the legally con- 
stituted tribunals for the administration of justice, 
may be iilsg.illy o \strucfed or reiisied. This 
proposition 1 lay down distinctly, broadly, and 
confidently. It id above the reach of asaailment, 



73884 






iind beyond the power of refutation . And I main- 
tain funher, that the very laws cited by the Pres- 
ident, iVom which he claims the exercise of the 
extraordinary and unwarranted power he does, 
sustains the proposition. These very acts do not, 
in the slightest degree, confer the power which he 
notifies to Congress and the country that he in- 
tends to exercise under them. 

Now, sir, let us see. He cites the 2d section of 
the act of Congress of 1795, and the act of 3d 
March, 1807. But perhaps it would be better to 
refer to the acts, as he himself cites them. Here 
is what he says : 

" The second section of the act of the 28th of February, 
1795, declares that whenever the laws of the United States 
shall be opposed, or their execution obstructed, in any 
State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the 
ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or the power vested 
in the marshals, the President may call forth the militia, so 
far as maybe necessary to suppress such combinations, and 
to cause the laws to be dulv executed. 

"By the act of March 3d', 1807, it is provided that, in all 
cases of obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, 
^or any individual State or Territory, where it is lawful for 
the President to c.ill forth the militia for the purpose of caus- 
ing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him 
to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or 
naval force of the United States as shall be judged neces- 
sary." 

TJ^ese are tiieacts of Congress upon which he 
relies. The first, it will be perceived, only author- 
izes him in certain cases to call out the militia; the 
Becond authorizes him, in all similar cases, to use 
the army and navy if necessary. He has, how- 
ever, no authority, under either act, to use thearmy 
and netvy, or to call out the militia, for the purpose 
of aidung in the execution of the laws, except in 
Buch cases as are provided for by the act of 1795. 
And what are those cases ? They are such as where 
the Ja*'S may be opposed on their execution, or 
obstricted in any State, by combinations too pow- 
erful to be suppressed by the ordinary covrse of 
judidal proceedings, or the •power vested in the mar- 
shal!. This is the only class of cases where the 
Preident is authorized to use the military force of 
the country to aid in the execution of the laws of 
th« United States. It is where the due course of 
law, through the courts and by the marshals, is op- 
posed and obstructed, or where the combinations in 
resistance to law "are too powerful to be sup- 
pressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceed- 
jngs, or the power vested in the marshals." 

Now, sir, is there any such case, or is there 
likely to be any such case, in the territory over 
which Texas is about to establish her juris- 
diction? Is there any law, any act of Congress in 
force there which cannot be executed in the ordi- 
nary course of judicial proceeding? No one will 
assert that there is either any law or "judicial 

Eroceeding " authorized by law in that country, 
nown to your statute book. You have passed 
no law for the country, even on the supposition 
that it rightfully belongs to you, and not to Texas. 
If the country belongs to the United States by 
conquest, as the President says, then its Govern- 
ment devolves upon Congress. But Congress, 
as yet, has provided no government for it. They 
have given the people there no law defining rights, 
or courts for the redress of wrongs. But the 
President says that the treaty is a law, and that 
he is bound to protect the rights which it secures. 
But, sir, I deny that the obligations of this treaty, 
or any treaty, weighty as they may be, which re- 
quire legislation for their proper execution and 
fwlfiUment, can be discharged and performed by the 
President, unless he be first empowered by the 
• iiecessarv laws. I grant that this Government, by 



the ratification of this treaty, assumed obligations 
towards certain Mexicans which ought in good 
faith to be observed. But it does not follow that 
the President is to assume theldischarge of these 
obligations himself. The same treaty put us under, 
the obligation to pay the Government of Mexico 
twelve millions of dollars— that was as much the 
law of the land as the guarantee of rights now 
under consideration; and yet the President, I pre- 
sume, would not dare to put his hand into the 
Treasury, and pay what is due under that stip- 
ulation, without the authority of an act of ap- 
propriation. In our treaty with Great Britain, 
in 1815, establishing, to some extent, a recipro- 
city in trade, it was provided that goods and 
merchandise, and products coming from certain 
British possessions should be admitted into our 
ports upon as good terms as those we extended to 
the most favored nations bringing like products. 
This stipulation was as much the law of the land as 
the obligations to these Mexicans; and yet it re- 
quired an act of Congress to carry it into effect and 
secure the rights under it — that is, to accommo- 
date the commercial laws of the country to suit 
the stipulations of the treaty. The President 
could not have enforced the rights secured to Brit- 
ish subjects under that treaty by an executive or- 
der; neither can the present President fulfil the ex- 
isting obligation to pay Mexico the balance of what 
is due her of the twelve millions, without the con- 
currence of Congress. No idea could be more erro- 
neous than to suppose, because a treaty is the law 
of the land, that the President can of himself as- 
sume the fulfillment of its obligations when those 
obligations do not rest upon htm alone, but upon 
the Government in all its departments — legislative, 
judicial and executive. And that is the case now 
"before us. The obligations of this treaty as to the 
rights of " liberty, property, and religion," on the 
part of the Mexicans, rest not upon (he Presi- 
dent alone, but upon the Government of the United 
States. The law-making, the law -expounding, and 
the law-executing powers conjointly. The law-ma- 
king power must first speak. Laws defining right* 
and wrongs must be first passed. Courts must 
also be instituted to expound those laws, and mar- 
shals must be duly appointed to execute their 
mandates. And if the execution of the laws thus 
passed be opposed by combinations too powerfal 
to be suppressed by the ordinary course ofjudicial 
proceeding thus established, (/jen, and not till then, 
would the President be justified under existing 
laws, to resort to the military force for the protec- 
tion of the rights secured by that article of the 
treaty. By the Constitution of the United States 
it is expressly provided, that cases arising under 
treaties shall be determined by the judiciary 
The military, in this country, by no law in your 
statute book, can be called out in tlrne of peace but 
in aid of the execution of laws in the channels of 
the courts, or in assistance of the marshal in the 
discharge of powers vested in them by law. If 
the President, therefore shall, in the contingency 
he apprehends, use the military forces at his com- 
mand against the authorities of Texas, it will 
be without authority of law, a daring usurpation of 
power, andja gross violation of the Constitution of 
the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the surest safeguards of 
public liberty is, that in time of peace the military 
shall be subordinate to the civil authority. And 
one of the giavest charges brought against the 
King of England in that long list of abuses of 
power enumerated in our Declaration of Independ- 



ence, and which lost him the American Colonies, 
was that of quartering troops in the Colonies with- 
out the consent of the Legislatures, and of rendering 
•' the military independent of, and superior to, the 
civil power." Sir, this principle dtites back ante- 
rior even to that. It constitutes the soul and s|-.irit 
of Magna Charta itself. The old l>aron.s of Eng- 
land at Runnymede, in 1215, achieved for them- 
selves, their nation, and mankind, no greater or 
more important principle than that which com- 
pelled King John to grant that in all time to come 
within his realm — 

'■ \uUu-i liber homo capiatur, vcl imprvionetur, aul dissaii- 
iatur, aut uilagetur, aul. exutetur, ant aliquo modo destruahir; 
nee nuper eum ibimtii, nee super eum mUtinuts, nisi per legale 
judiciwH suorum, parium velper legem terra." 

'• No freeman sliall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispoisesscd, 
or otUlaweii. or in anyway destroyed; nor mill wc condemn 
kim, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting bi/ the legal 
judgment of Ai* peers, or by the laivs of the land."' 

This principle has remained unshaken in Eng- 
land for upwards of six hundred years. Our 
ancestors brought it with them to this western ;| 
continent. The framers of our Constitution re- » 
produced it, somewhat modified in form, but the j 
same in spirit and substance, in that great charter 
of pov,er by which every officer of this Govern- 
ment is limited and controlled. The fifth artinle I 
of the Constitution of the United States provides I, 
that— 

■^•'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, | 
without due process of law." " " j, 

The sixth article is in these words: i 

'' In all criminal prosecutions the accused .«hall enjoy the 
right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the 
State and district wherein the crime shall have been com- 
mitted, which district shaW have been previously ascertained 
by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the 
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in !; 
bis favor; and I'l h.ive the assistance of counsel for his | 
defence." 

Now, sir, I ask if a man can be rightfully shot j 
down by an armed soldiery in pursuance of an I 
Executive order, for doing what he could not be 
even indicted and tried for doing, much less con- 
victed of any offence for doing, by any court or , 
code known to the law.3 of the land ? Can the 
President rightfully order the army to shoot citi- 
zens of the country in time of peace, who are 
guilty of no crime, or a violation of no law? Can 
a man in this country, by an order from the Chief 
Magistrate, be deprived of his life in time of peace 
" without due process of law.'" Where there is 
no law there can be no transgression. You will | 
observe, Mr. Chairman, that I am only consider- ; 
ing this question as it now stands — I iinve, as yet, j 
eaid nothing about what would be the condition of i 
things if Congress should undertake to establish a I 
government for New Mexico this side the R.io 
Grande. If courts should be established there, 
and if l.iws should be passed prescribing the man- 
ner of determining by judicial proceeding.^ the 
rights of Mexicans residing there, under the treaty, 
and clothing the President witli power to call to 
the aid of the civil authorities the military force 
in ca.se the execution of such laws should be re- 
sisted, that would present a very different ques- 
tion from the one now before us. The President 
has not-invoked our aid, nor asked us to pass any 
laws lliai may be necessary to execute that article 
of the treaty, or to enable him to do it efficiently 
and rightfully, nor has he even asked us to pass 
any law to enable him to use the military force of 
the country for that purpose. He hos simply an- 
nounced what he intends to do in certain conlin- 11 
gencies, without authority of law. !• 



If a proposition was before us to pass a law au- 
thorizing the President to resist the authority of 
Texas in extending her jurisdiction in that part of 
the country to which reference has beer, made, 
that would present the question whether there is 
any constitutional power in the General Govern- 
ment to coerce one of the States of tiie Union. 
That is a question I do not now wish to discuss. 
It is not now before us. If a bill be brought in to 
confer this power on the President, then I shall 
rneet it. That was the distinct question presented 
in 18.33 between this Government and t!ie State of 
South Carolina. The position assumed by Mr. 
Fillmore is fl^r outside of that assumed by General 
Jackson. General Jackson seems never to have 
dreamed of relying on the acts of 1795 and 1807, 
although there would have been much more reason 
for his doing so in that case than the present Chief 
Magistrate, in the case before us. For, in South 
Carolina there were revenue and judiciary iaws in 
force. And in case their execution had been ob- 
structed, there would have been much more justi- 
fiable ground for calling out the military force th»n 
there is in this case, when there is no iaw to ob- 
struct, and no judiciary to appeal to, in :he first 
instance. But General Jackson came to Congress 
with a message',-and asked an amcnume;!t pf the 
laws providing for the collection df the rereaue, to 
meet the^emergency created by the ordinatice and 
laws of South Carolina. And he further siked an 
amendment of the acts of 1795 and 1807, jlo as to 
give him full power to call to his aid themilitary 
forces of the country in case the judiciart should 
prove unable to execute the amended laws by 
reason of resistance to its process or judgments. 
In accordance with his views, the act (s\te1: knoxva 
as the force bill) was passed, which expiVed by its 
own limitation in twelve months from its tkte. The 
constitutionality of that act was very muMi ques- 
tioned by many at that time. But that islnot the 
matter I am now discussing. It is not even whether 
General Jackson, without that act, could hive ex- 
ercised all the powers it conferred on him;\but it 
i.s, whether the President shall make hit own. 
judgment of the rights of a treaty, withoii any 
judicial investigation, the law of the land, ann use 
the military force to carry that private judgment of 
his into execution. It is simply, whether we are 
to be under military rule or a government of laws. 

The President says that the question of Texas 
boundary is one that he cannot decide. In this 
opinion I fully concur. This is a matter he has no 
more power to decide than you or I. And until 
it is determined by agreement between this Gov- 
ernment and Te.xas, or by judicial proceedings, it 
is oeyond his province to give even an opinion 
one way or the other. But how he can assume 
to say that the Mexicans on this side the Rio 
Grande are not within those limits over which 
Texas can rightfully extend her civil jurisdiction, 
without at the same time undertaking to decide 
the question of boundary, I cannot understand. 
These too positions of the President, to my mind, 
arc irreconcilal)le. If any man can show h.ow he 
can .say to Texas, " Thus far you may go and no 
further," without deciding the .question of her 
bounday, I should like to hear him. That is 
certainly a decision, and a most emphatic decision 
of the question. It is a decision in the last resort 
to be executed by force. And, moreover, it is an 
Executive decision, without color of authority 
Nothing else can be made of it. 
I As to the position that the United States troops 
I were left in the territory at the termination of the 



war, and that it is the duty of the President, as 
com"f}ander-in-chief, to keep them there and to 
hold possession of the country with them against 
any interference on the part of Texas, until the 
boundary be settled, I do not consider that it rises 
to that dignity which would justify an argument 
to answer it. If the country belongs to the Uni- 
ted States by conquest, its Government devolves 
upon Congress. And if any laws be necessary 
to defend it, and secure ii, it is the duty of ttie 
President to apply to the law-making power for 
authority to do so, And until Congress makes 
some disposition of it, or gives him authority to 
hold it by force, he has no right or power to do 
it. Until Congress speaks, he has no authority to 
defend by force the military possession of the 
United States of any portion of their late acquisi- 
tions from JMexico. How has it been in Califor- 
nia.' There wc have seen this possession, which 
it is said he is bound to defend, entirely abandoned; 
and the whole country taken possession of by 
people coming from all countries, and speaking 
all languages, who have appropriated it to them- 
selves, and who have set up a government for 
themselves, which we are called upon to recog- 
nize and sanction. Now, if it be the duty of the 
President to defend by force military possession 
of New Mexico this side the RIt Grande, against 
the authorities of Texas, until the boundary be set- 
tled, why is it not also his duty to defend in like 
manner the military possession of California until 
Congress shall make some disposition of it ? The 
case of California is much stronger in every point 
of view than that of New Mexico this side the 
Rio Grande. For I have shown that the Presi- 
dent cannot interfere there without the virtual de- 
cision of the question of Texas boundary, which 
he admits that he has no right to decide. 

I now go further; and I maintain that if Texas 
should be resisted by the Mexicans in this portion 
of the territory lying within her prescribed limits, 
and should apply to the President for assistance to 
put down that resistance while this question of 
boundary is unsettled, he would be bound, under 
the Constitution, and law of 1795, to afford the 
necessary assistance. I read from the first sec- 
tion of that act: 

" And in case of an insurrection in any State against the 
Government tliereof, it shall be lawful for the President of 
theUnittd State?, on application of the Legislauue of such 
State, 01 of the Executive, f when the Legii^latuin cannot lie 
convened,) to call forth such number of Ihe militia of any 
other Stato or States as may be applied for, as he may judge 
sufficient to i^upprcss such insurrection." 

These people, it is well known, reside within 
the limits of Texas according to the boundaries 
prescribed by her own laws. The law of bound- 
ary of that State the President is as much bound to 
respect and have enforced as any other law of 
Texas, or any other law of any other State, or 
any law of the United States, unless it be incon- 
sistent with the Constitution of the United States, 
or some law or treaty of the United States. I re- 
peat, sir, the President is as much bound to regard 
all constitutional laws of the respective States as 
he is the laws of the United States. And if called 
upon in pursuance of the act of 1795, just read, he 
is as much bound to assist a State in [)utting down 
resistance to the execution of any of her constitu- 
tional laws, as he is to sec to the execution of the 
laws of the United State.i. And, as it is a ques- 
tion which he cannot decide, he is bound to regard 
the lawsof Texas, whether defining her boundary 
or extending her jurisdiction, as valid, unless it 
comes in conflict with the Constitution, or some 



law or treaty of the United States. Now, sir, is 
there anything in this law of Texas inconsistent 
with the late treaty with Mexico.' 

I do not intend now to go into a discussion of 
the Texas boundary. I did this a few days ago 
I do not now wish to repeat v/hat I then said. L 
will barely enumerate some of the points. You 
and this House well recollect that i do not consider 
the question now as it stood before the war. 
Texas, as an independent State, was aiinexed and 
admttted into the Union with such territorial limits 
as rightfully belonged to her at that time. Her 
rights were founded altogether upon the right of 
successful revolution, and their extent, in my 
opinion then, was to the limits over which she had 
established her jurisdiction. Her limits were such 
as she had successfully marked by the sword. I 
did not then believe, nor do 1 now believe, that she 
had thus established. her jurisdiction to the extent 
of her claim. But the settlement of her boundary 
with Mexico was reserved for this Government. 
And this Government, without waiting for peaceful 
negotiation, proceeded by force of arms to assert 
her rights to the extent of her claim. The then 
President, Mr. Polk, maintained that her proper 
boundary rightfully extended to the Rio Grande, 
from its mouth to its source; and this position was 
] maintained in the act declaring war, by large ma- 
jorities in both branches of Congress. It did not 
receive my vote, for I did not believe it to be true. 
But it received the sanction of this Government in 
; both the executive and legislative departments. 
I The Government of the United States, therefore, 
1 consider to be fully committed on this point. 
j Unless we are disposed to disregard the public faith 
most solemnly plighted, we are, in my opinion, 
estopped by the record. It was upon the asser- 
tion of these rights of Texas to the Rio Grande 
' froni its mouth to its source, that the war was de- 
clared. It was in vindication of the rights of 
I Texas to extend her jurisdiction under her laws 
i and Constitution to the limits of her Territorial 
I claim, that the army was ordered to take a position 
\ on the east bank of the Rio Grande. The war was 
' the consequence. And now 1 ask, if there is any- 
I thing in the treaty that was made at the end of 
j that war incoKsistetit with those laws of Texajj 
which the war was commenced to enforce ? So 
far from it, the treaty aifirms the boundary to be 
the Rio Grande up to the corner of New Mexico 
oji the other side of the Rio Grande — then turning 
westward — leaving to Texas, without the slightest 
lesttiction, all the territory claimed by her. And, 
moreover, the treaty has a map accompanying it, 
which is made part of it, and in which the bound- 
ary of Texas is clearly and distinctly set forth, aa 
running with the Rio Grande from its mouth to its 
source. So far, then, from this treaty containing 
anything inconsistent with the previous laws of 
, Texas, defining and asserting her rights, it does 
seem to me, upon all the rules of just and fair con- 
struction, to affirm and fully establish those rights, 
and utterly to deiirive this Government of all pre- 
text of 'questioning them, except by bold, open, 
! and infamous repudiation. 

Mr. MOORE inquired whether the resolutions 
of aimexation did not leave it to the General Gov- 
ernment to determine the boundary of Texas? 
1 Mr. STEPHENS. The resolutions of annexa- 
tion conferred upon the General Government ihe 
I power to settle this question of boundary with 
j( Mexico. They give this Govertunent authority 
or power over the subject for no other object, and 
to no further extent. " This Government had no 



juriadiction over the matter but with Mexico. She 
mi no power to say to Texas that her limits 
should be restricted, but in treating with Mexico. 
1 have shown that in the treaty with Mexico there 
ie no clause restrictins; them. Of course she has ' 
no p'jwer to testrict them now. But, to pre~:ent 
the subject to the gentleman in a clearer view, 
suppose that Mexico hud never questioned the 
right of Texas to the Rii Grande, could thi^ Gov- 
ernment ever have done so .' — Would we not have 
been bound to maintain hw jurisdiction to ihe ex- 
tent of her limit.s prescribed by her laws, and to 
have put down any insurrection against her laws 
within those limits ? The only contesting party 
Texas- had was Mexico; and when Mexico ceased 
the contest, Texas and the United States stood to- 
wards each other just as they would have stood if 
no contcs't had ever arisen, unless in making the 
treaty which terminated the contest, and where 
the United States only had jurisdiction, some re- 
striction was imposed upon Texas. If such re- 
striction had been inserted in the treaty, of course 
Texas would have been bound by it; for this Gov- 
ernment had the power in that way to take juris- 
diction over it, but in no other way. And as the 
treaty does not contain any such restriction, and 
as Mexico is no longer contesting, I maintain that 
Texas and the United States stand towards each 
other upon this subject now just as they would 
hare stood if the war had never been wa^ed, and 
Mexico had never disputed her claim. The gen- 
tleman, i trust, understands me, and feels fully 
answered. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, asked if it 
was not competent for Mexico to assign her inter- 
est in the disputed territory to the United States, 
and whether the United States, under the treaty, 
was no', the assignee of that interest .> 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, continued. No, 
sir. In the articles of union between Texas and 
the United States, or the resolutions of annexa- 
tion, Texas gave this Government no power to 
become the assignee of Mexico. The only power 
conferred was to extinguish the outstanding claim. 
This Government assumed the character of an 
umpire. She had power to settle the dispute as a 
disinterested per.son, but not to become u party to 
the controversy. She had no power to purchase 
the outstanding claim, and to become the assignee 
thereof. And if she had so purchased it, her rights 
would have been inva'id, and the purchase would 
have inured immediately, according to the well- 
settled principles of lav.', to Texas, hev cestui qui 
trust. But, sir, the treaty shows that she did not 
attempt to take an assignment of the interest of 
Mexico in the disputed territory, and to put herself 
in the shoes of Mexico in this matter. There are no 
duch words, no such clause, no such intent to be 
found from the beginnina to the end of that treaty, 
and no such construction can be put upon it without 
committing as great an outrage upon the English 
language as some men seem disposed to commit 
upon what I now consider to be the indisputable 
constitutional rights of Texas. These rights have, 
in my judgment, been thus indisputably estab- 
lished by the action of this Government. I do 
not intend now to speak of the policy which gov- 
erned the public counsels at that time. It is known 
that [ opposed it to the utmost of my ability. But 
what was done then cannot be undone no at. We 
have heard a great deal for some years past of the 
odiuirt of repudiation. A:id strange to say, the 
very rnsn who have been loudest m their denunci- 
ation against particular Ststca who failed for a time 



to fulfill their public engagements, are now th^ 
loudest in their clamors for a total disregard of th.e 
pledged faith of the Union. These arf the men, 
also, who are pleased to assume to themselves th;i 
title of conservatives. Sir, if I know anything of 
conservatism, it is that principle which susiai.is the 
supremacy of the law, which maintains the rights 
of all parties under the lav/, and which never aban- 
dons the public faith when once constitutionally 
■jiven. This is the nature of my conservatism. 
And could a more shameless spectacle be presented 
to the civilized world than for this Government, 
after having gone to war with Mexico for contend- 
ing that the rigiits of Texas did not extend to the 
Rio Grande, and after spending all the blood and 
treasure which was wasted in that war, to turn 
round and commence another equally bloody and 
much more unnatural conflict against Texas for 
asserting that her rightful boundary does extend to 
that limit? Fhis is the disgrace, scandal, and m- 
famy which some of you who call your.-ielves con- 
servatives would bring upon your country. I 
belong to no such class of men. i am for abidin-- 
by the order of things as I find them constitution 
ally existing, until they be constitutionally changed 
If they get too bad tn be borne w ithout hope of re- 
dress, then I shall be for re^^.ion. 

But having been led to 8ayrW>fg upon this s^ib- 
ject of the boundary of Texas than I intended^ m 
consequence of the interruptions, I return to/ the 
point I was upon. And I again repeat, that i^ the 
President should be called upon by Texas t^ put 
down illegal resistance to her authorities withfri her 
limits, he would be bound to regard the law of/Tex- 
as, defining her boundary, as the law of the land on 
this subject, until it be displaced or invalidated by 
some superior law. The treaty would have\been 
such superior law if it had done it. But it diiinot. 
A law of Congress, with the consent of Tex- 
as, would be such a law ; but none such is in eiist- 
ence. Whether a law of Congress alone, w\;h- 
out the consent of Tex^is, would be such a Uw, 
is not now before us. It will be time enougliUo 
discuss that question when it arises. All that Ve 
now have before us, is the message announcib 
the opinion of the Executive that it is a queitidii 
that he cannot decide; but that, until it is decideif 
by competent authority, he will use force to pre* 
vent the extension of the jurisdiction of Texa^ 
over territory lying within her limits as prescribed 
by her laws, notwithstandig those laws are rot 
inconsistent or in conflct with any superior law; 
and that he will do this without asking any au- 
thority from Congress in addition to that conferred 
upon him by the acts of 1795 and 1807. I have 
shown conclusively, I think, that those acts con- 
fer no such a^nhoriiy on him. And now, in con- 
clusion on this branch of the subject, I assert, 
that if he attempts thus by force to arrest the le- 
gal authorities of Texas, it will be a gro33 usurpa- 
tion of power which should be resisted 

And if you wish to knovv- what I mean by re- 
sistance, or how 1 mean it should be resisted, I 
say distinctly, it should be resisted by arms, as 
lawless force always should be resisted. 

I cannot speak for Texas— I have no authority 
to apeak for her— she has men upon this floor 
who can speak for her. But I have mistaken the 
character of her people if the spirit exhibited at ths 
Alamo and St. Jacinto would submit tamely to 
such wanton wrong. The rights and duty of 
Texas, to my mind, are clear, "if the question be 
not settled, she should extend her jurisdiction over 
thia territory— she should pass all laws necessary 



to command obedience to her sovereignty within 
her limits. 

And if the execution of those laws should be 
opposed by force, either on the part of the people 
residing in the disaffected section or th 3 army of 
the United Slates, she should meet force with 
force, let the consequences be what they may. 
And no man need delude himself with the opinion, 
that in such a conflict Texas would be alone. 1 
have lately expressed the opinion, that " the first 
Federal gun that shall be fired (gainst the peo- 
fle of Texas tvithout the authority of law, will be a 
signal for the freemen from the Delaicare to the Rio 
Grande to rally to the rescue." And I repeat the 
sentiment here this day. The clangor of battle at 
Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill, did not 
more magically arouse every friend of his country, 
from Massachusetts to Georgia, in the time of co- 
lonial wrongs, than the first roar of Federal artil- 
lery in such a cause, at Santa Fc, will start to arms, 
at this time, every true-hearted man south of Ma- 
son and Dixon's line. The former was the begin- 
ning of one Revolution, and it will be welPfor 
those to whom the destinies of this Republic are 
nov/ committed, to take care that the latter may 
not be the commencement of another. The peo- 
ple in the slayaholding States of this Union can- 
not mistake this question. They understand per- 
fectly well that noUiing would ever have been 
lieard of this doctrine, of its being the duty of the 
President to maintain the possession of the United 
States over this country against Texas, if it had not 
been that Texas is a slave State. We have heard 
nothing of it in California, or Utah , or New Mexico 
the other side of the Rio Grande. We have heard 
nothing of the obligations of the. treaty securing 
"life, liberty, and religion," to those Mexicans 
vho have fallen within the dominions of the Mor- 
flnons, or who have become a prey to the savages 
that roam over the immense tracts of country be- 
tween the Del Norte and the Pacific. No, sir; we 
have heard nothing of these obligations of the 
treaty, and this doct-rine of holding possession by 
force without authority of law, saving in that 
comparatively small portion of the Territory lying 
east of the Rio Grande, which falls within the pre- 
Bcnbed limits of Texas. " Liberty, property, and 
religion," stand in no need of protection amongst 
the mixed and motley herd who have flocked to 
California from all nations and climes — the.se sa- 
cred rights are perfectly safe amongst Mormons 
and savages. It is only in slaveholding Texas 
that they need protection. Now, sir, I say there 
is no mistaking the issue. And I tell you, the peo- 
ple of the South will meet it, and they will meet 
it as freemen " who know their rights, and know- 
ing them, dare maintain them." 

Mr. Chairman, it gives me no pleasure to speak 
in this language. 1 do not wish to be understood as 
picturing a state of things which would afl'ord me 
any gratification to behold. 1 am but proclaiming 
disagreeable truths, which public duty requires me 
to utter. I am not insensible to thejconsequences 
which would inevitably ensue from such a collis- 
ion. I am, therefore, as anxious as any man can 
be to avert them if possible; but they can never 
be averted by the policy of this mes.sage. I have 
for a long time looked upon this question of Texas 
boundary as the most embarrassing one before 
us, and I feel no hesitancy in saying, that 1 am in 
favor of a speody and amicable adjustment of it. 
I am also for a settlement of all the other causes 
of irritation and agitation in the country, which 
now so |mi«fully disturb and distrnct the public 



ri, 



mind, as well as the public councils. But it is 

important that we do not deceive ourselves on 
these questions. ! intend, therefore, to opeak 
plainly and disfinc.'ly to you and the country. 
When we talk of nn amicable adjustment, we may 
as well understand clearly what'we mean by it. 
The President in his message, notwithstanding 
this threat of force, urges upon Congress the set- 
tlement of these matters of contention and strife; — 
that part of the message meets my cordial approval. 
But how are they to be amicably settled ? This 
brings us directly to the principles which must 
govern our action — to the basis upon which we 
are to agree. I shall give you mine candidly and 
frankly. 

So far as the boundary of Texas is concerned, 
I am willing to settle that upon the plan suggested 
by the President, provided we can agree upon the 
terms of disposing of the other sectional diflficul- 
ties. We hear a great deal about settlement, ad- 
justment, compromise, harmony, and union. Now 
I am for all these. I am no enemy to the Unio;i. 
And those of this House v/ho know much of me, 
know full well that I mean exactly what I say. 
I repeat, I am no enemy to the Union — and I am 
for its preservation and its perpetuation, if it can 
be done upon principles of equality and justice. 
Attachment to the Union with me and with the 
South generally, I think, is a sentiment of patriot- 
ism — it grows out of the recollections of the past, 
the glories of the present, and the hopes of the 
future. It arises from no base calculation of dol- 
lars and cents. But I tell gentlemen of the North 
it is for them now to determine whether it shall be 
preserved ornot. In pointof money value, I think it 
is worth more to the North than to the South. We 
have heard but little from gentlemen from that sec- 
tion, for eight months past, but eulogies upon the 
Union. If they are sincere in the expression of 
this deep devotion to the institutions of our fa- 
thers, it is time for them to present the offering 
which they are willing to make upon the altar of 
our common country for its preservation. If they 
expect the South to make all the sacrifices, to yield 
everything, and to permit them to carry out their 
sectional policy under the cry of " our glorious 
Union;" they will find themselves most sadly mis- 
taken. It is time for mutual concessions. This 
Union was formed for the protection of the 
lives, the liberty, and the property of those who 
entered into it, and those who should fill their 
places after them. Allegiance and protection are 
reciprocal; where no protection is extended, no 
rightful allegiance can be claimed. And no people, 
in my judgment, who deserve the name of free- 
men, will continue their allegiance to any Govern- 
ment which arraysitself not only against their prop- 
erty, but against their social and civil organization. 
If you, gentlemen of the North, then, intend to in- 
graft upon the policy of this common Government 
your anti-slavery views, and to make its action 
conform to your sectional purposes, it is useless to 
say anything more of compromise, settlement, ad- 
justment, or union. It is as well for us to come 
to a distinct understanding upon the subject, at 
once. I do not place a iow estimate upon the 
value of the Union 10 the South; but I do not con- 
sider itsdissolution, with all the manifold attending 
evils of such an event in full view before me, as the 
Streatest calamity ihat could befall ua. Far from 
it. Tlier-" is no evil which can fall upon any 
people, in my opinion, equal to that of the degrada- 
tion which alwa]^. follows a .submis.yon to insult, 
injury, outrage, ant5 aggression. And whenever 



this Government, is brought in hostile array against 1| sage of a law more effectually to secure the rendi- 
me and mine, 1 am for disunion — openly, boldly, Ij tion of fugitives from labor; which is our right 
and fearlessly, for revolution. I speak plainly, il expressly guarantied under the Constitution; and 
Gentlemen may call this " treason" if they please, m this you continue to refuse us. And how is it upon 
Sir, epithets have no terrors forme. The charge of i this very territorial question which is now the 
'• traitor" may be whispered in the ears of the timid II source of the excitement, which the gentleman 
and craven-hearted. It is the last appeal of tyrants. | from Pennsylvania says will never be allayed until 
Ilis no new word of modern coinage. It is a term the South ceases her endeavors to gain an unjust- 
long since familiar to those who know how free- \\ ifiable control over the action of theGovernment? 
dom is lost and how freedom may be won. And it How does this case stand ? Who is it that is at- 
1 say here, in the presence of this House, in broad jj tempting to control the policy of the Government 



day, that I will acknowledge allegiance to no Gov 
ernment that puts the property of the people to 
which I belong out of the pale of the law, and 
which attempts to fix public odium and reproba- 
tion upon their social order and civil organization. 
When that day comes, if it ever does, " down 
with the Government" will be my motto and 



to carry out their sectional views and purposes • 

A public domain has been acquired by the com- 
mon blood and common treasure of all, and the 
South, who is charged with endeavoring to con- 
trol the Government for their purposes, asks noth- 
ing but that the common territory which ia the 
public property, may be opened to the entry and 



watchword. When I am outlawed by you, I shall ij settlement and equal enjoyment of all the citizens 
become your implacable enemy. I shall never || of every part of the Republic, with their property 
kiss the rod that smites me. And no people who : of every description; while it is the North who 
donotdeaerve to be scoffed at, trampled upon, and jj comes here and demands that the whole of this 
kicked by their oppressors, will, i told you that j! common domain shall be set apart exclusively for ■ 
we mightas well talk plainly upon thissubject, and :l themselves, or for themselves and siTcfi persons 
I intend to do it. And it is for you now, who have i; from the South as will strip themselves of a cer- 
nothing on your lips but " union," if you are in ij tain species of their property, and conform their 
earnest in your professions, to come forward and ji views to the policy of the North. 1 submit it to 
assist in devising the ways and means of sustain- jj every candid man in this House, and to every in- 
ing it. 1 have on a former occasion given my |j telligent and candid man in the world, outside of 
views upon the subject of our differences, and I i| the House, if this is not a fair statement of tl»fe 



intend to repeat them before I close; but I have not \\ question 



The South asks no discrimination |i 
yet heard anything from those who compose the II her favor. It is the North that is seeking to ott- 
majority in this House of a conciliatory character. |i tain discriminations against her and her peopfe. 
If your only reliance for harmony, peace, and ij And who leads in this endeavor to control the Re- 
union is force, come out and say so; or if you have 1| tion of the Government for sectional objects ? ' It 
anyplan of conciliation, submit it. I am forconcili- ij is the gentleman himself, who brings this charge 
ation, if it can be accomplished upon any reason- ij against the South. Sir, I deny the charge, ind 
able and just principles. I am also for making a I repel it. And 1 tell that gentleman, and \he 
clean busmess of it. 1 am for no partial arrange- 1 House, if these agitations are not to cease ur\til 
ment. If we aim at peace, let us have no tempo- |i the South shall quietly and silently yield to the(e 
rary truce, but permanent quiet and repose. This, j| demands of the North, it is useless to talk of ar 
in my opinion, can only be done by a settlement of ii amicable settlement of the matters in controveri 
all the questions growing out of these territorial || If that is the basis you propose, we need say noth 
acquisitions upon liberal and proper terms. What | ing further about agreement or adjustment— upor 
are such terms? This is the practical point for ii those terms we can never settle. The people o^ 
us now to consider. ] the S mth have as much right to occupy, enjoy. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [iMr. Wil- ' and colonize, these Territories with their property,^ 
mot] said the other day, that these agitations || as the people of the North have with theirs. This 
would never cease until the South ceased her en- is the basis upon which I stand, and the princi- 
■deavors to force the General Government to con- pies upon which it rests arc as immutable as right 
form its policy to their sectional views and inter- H and justice. They are the principles of natural 
ests. This was the purport of his remarks, if I ij law, founded in natural justice, as recognized by 
heard him correctly. In this he virtually charged the ablest Publicists who have written upon the 
thatjtheseagitationscame from theSouth, and with- jj laws of nations and the rights pertaining to con- 
out just cause. And the correctness of this ac- |i quests. These acquisitions belong to the whole 
cusation I deny. When, let me ask that gentle- {i people of the United Slates, as conquerors. They 
man, did the South ever attempt to control the ' hold them under the Constitution, and the General 
action of this Government for the promotion of ! Government as common property in a corporate 



her peculiar interests.' When did she ever ask 
this Government to pass any law for the promotion 
of her interests ? The North has repeatedly asked 
for tariff acts and navigation acts, upon which their 
interests so much depend — which have been re- 
peatedly granted. It is true, that men from the 
South have often voted for such measures when 
presented and urged by the North — not because 
the South was particularly interested in them, but 
because the North was, and they were willing to 
advance the interests of the North, when, in their 
4)pinion, they could do so without injury or detri- 
ment to other sections. But when did the South 
ever invoke the action nf this Government for its 
«xclusive benefit? I ask for the instance to be 
named I recollect but one, and that is the pas- 



capdcity. 

Vattfcl, in treating on this subject in his svork 
on the laws of nations, says, {book 1, chap. 20, 
p. 113:) 

" All itieinbers of a corporalion have an equal ric^hl to the 
useof the common propoly. But reppectiiig the manner of 
enjoying it, the body oltlie corporation may make such reg- 
ulations as lliey may Ihirilv propi^r, provide. i tliat those ri-gu- 
latioiis bfi not incon>istriit with that equality of right which 
ought to be pi(.s( rvcd m a i oioinunion of property. Thus a 
corporation may d. tirniMn' tlic use of a common forest era 
common pasture, liitlni allotting it to all tht nienitiers, ac 
cording to their wants, or allolting each an equal sharr ; but 
Ilicy have not a right to exclude any one of the members, or to 
I make a distinction to his dUadvantage, by 'assigning him a tes-v 
.9/iure than that of the others." 

The principles here set forth are those upon 
which 1 place the merits and justice of our cause. 



Under our Constitution, the power of makini^ reffu- 
latJons'for the enjoyment of the common domain, 
devolves upon Congress, the common agent of all 
the partifs interested in it. In the exerution of this 
trust, jt is the duty of Congrfss to pass all laws ne- 
cessary for an f qui and just pnrticipatinn in it. And 
eo far from this common agent having any right to 
exclude a portion of the ptopie, or " to make dis- 
tinctions to their disadvarrtagt ,''' it is the duty of 
Congress fo open the country liy the removal of 
all ohstruction5, whether they he existing laws or 
anything else, and to give equal protection to all 
who may avail themselves of the right to u.se it. 
But you men of the North say, that we of the 
South wish to carry our slaves there, and that the 
free labor of the North cannot submit to the deg- 
radation of being associated with .slave labor. 
Well, then, we say, as the patriarch of old said to 
his friend and kinsman, when disputes arose be- 
tween the herdmen of their cattle: *' Let there be 
' no strife, 1 pray thee, between me and thee, and 
' between my herdmen and thy herdmen, for we 
« be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee.' 
' Separate thyself, I pray thee, fronn me. If thou 

• wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; 
' or, if thou depart to the right hand, then I will 

• go to the left." In other words, we say, if you 
cannot agree to enjoy this public domain in com- 
mon, let us divide it. You take a share, and fet us 
take a share. And I again submit to an intelligent 
and candid world if the proposition is not fair and 
JDSti — and whether it.s rejection does not amount 
to a riear expression of your fixed determination 
to exclude us entirely from any participation in 
this public domain.' 

Now, sir, all that we ask, or all that I ask, is for 
Cong'ess to open the entire country, and give an 
equal right to all the citizens of all the States to 
ente', settle, and colonize it with their property of 
cTcty kind; or to make an equitable division of it. 
Is <his wrong.' Is it endeavoring to control the 
Actbn of Congress improperly to carry out sec- 
Aioital views and interests.' And am I to subject 
/ mjself to the intended reproach of being an ullraist 
for insisting upon nothing but what is just and 
right? If so, T am willing to bear whatever of 
reproach the epithet may impart. If a man be an 
^dtraist for insisting upon nothing but his rights, 
with a willingness to compromise even these upon 
any fair and reasonable terms, without a total 
abandonment of thfm, then \ am an vltraist. And 
I am mistaken in the character of that people 
amongst whom I was born and with whom I have l| 
been reared, if a large majoilty of them, when all ' 
their propositions ''or adjustment and compromise 
shall have been rejected, will not he ultraists too. 
Be not deceived and do not deceive others — this ! 
Union can never be maintained by force. With the 
confidence and tiffections of the people of all sec- 
tions of the country, it is capable of being the | 
Btrongeet and best Government on earth. But it i 
can never be maintiiined upon any other principles I 
than those upon which it was formed. All free ' 
government.^ are the creatures of volition — a breath j 
can make them and a breath can destroy them. 
This Government is no exception to the i ule. And 
when once its spirit shhll have departed, no power 
on earth can ever again infuse in it the Prome- 
thean spark of life and vitality. You might just 
as well attempt to raise the dead. 

Mr. Chairman, when \ look to the cau'^es which 
lie ."\t the buiiom of tJiese differences of opinion 



I between the North and the South, and out, of 
I which this agitation springs; when I look at their 
j character, extent, and radical nature — entering, as 
I they necessarily do, into the very organizatio'n of 
I society with us, I must confess that unpleas- 
I ant apprehensions for the future permanent peace 
I and quiet of the different States of this Union 
j force themselves upon my mind. 1 am not, how- 
I ever, disposed to anticipate evil by indulging those 
I apprehensions unless compelled to do so. It rnay 
' be that we have the seed,g of dissolution in our sys- 
tem which no skill can eradicate, just a.? v/e carry 
with us in our bodies the seeds of ileath which will 
certainly do their work at the allotted time. But 
because we are all conscious that we must die, it 
does not follow that we should hasten the event 
by an act of suicide. We have the, bu.s!ness, 
duties, and obligations of life to discharge. So 
v^ith this Government. Because I may have se- 
rious apprehensions of the workings of causes 
known to exi.^t, I do not conceive it therefore to 
be in the line of duty to anticipate the natural effects 
of those causes by any rash or unjustifiable act. 
I am disposed rather to hope for the best, while 
I feel bound to be prepared for the wor.st What 
is really to be the future fate and destiny of this 
Republic is a matter of interesting speculation; but 
1 am well .satisfied that it cannot last iongj even if 
the pi-esent diffeiences be adjusted, unlesi these 
violent and bitter sectional feelings of the North be 
kept out of the National Halls. "This is ;) conclu- 
sion that all must come to, who know anything of 
the lessons of history. But our business to-day 
is with the present, and not the future; and I 
would now invoke every member of thi.s House 
who hears me, with the same frankness, earnest- 
ness, and singleness of purpose with which I have 
addressed them throughout these remarks, to come 
up like men and patriots, and relieve the country 
from the dangerous embarrassments by which it i.» 
at this time surrounded. It is a duty we owe to 
ourselves, to the millions we represent, and to the 
whole civilized world. To do thi.s, I tell you again, 
there must be concessions by the North as well as 
the South. Are you not prepared to make them? 
Are your feelings too narrow and restricted to em- 
brace the whole country and to deal justly by all 
its parts? Have you formed a fixed, firir-, and 
inflexible determination to carry your measures in 
this House by numerical strength, and then t6 en- 
force them by the bayonet? If so, you may be 
prepared to meet the consequences of whatever 
follows. The re.?ponsibility will rest upon your 
own heads. You may think that the suppression 
i.f an outbreak in the southern States would be a 
holiday job for a few of your northern regiments, 
but you may find to your cost, in the end, that 
seven millions of people fighting for their rights, 
their homes, and their hearth-stones, cannot be 
" easily conquered." I submit the matter lo your 
deliberate consideration. 

1 have told you, sincerely and honestly, that I 
am for peace and the Union u{)on any fair and 
reasonable terms — it is the most cherished senti- 
nicnt of my heart. But if you deny these terms — 
if you continue " deaf to the voice" of that spirit 
of justici;, right, a)id tquality, which c.houM i.iways 
characterize the deliberations of statesmen, I know 
ofMip other alternative that will be left to the peo- 
ple of the South, but, sooner or later, "to acqui- 
esce in the necessity" of "holding you, as the rest 
of mankind, enemies in war — in peace, friends." 



1*1111 ei bt Uie V.0 :(trc.-*.*)iiiiliO.>ije Ofliue. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESJ 



014 647 097 A \ 



Conservation Resources 

I :. C.««^ X.,nn I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 647 097 A i^ 



Conservation Resources 



